If you aren't writing libraries you rarely need to be concerned with move semantics. At one of my two C++ jobs, literally no class has any && shenanigans and at the other.. we are making libraries, so yeah we care about that, but even then 90% "=default" is all we need.
As for the old and new stuff both being there, yes it us but that doesn't mean you need or should use all of it. The new should replace the old or at least let you clean it up.
It sounds like the code you were forced into was super sloppy. Making move increment and decrement operator is an micro-optimization in the extreme. You can probably safely remove that non-sense and not see any difference if your class implements something like sane value semantics and use RAII. But of course like any language someone can make a big ball of mud when misusing the tools.
I agree there is complexity but I think most of the complexity you have needed to deal with is because of bad code. I could write you some Python or Ruby that is equally impossible to parse and deal with. Watch as I overload methods on Method class and Class class.
As for the old and new stuff both being there, yes it us but that doesn't mean you need or should use all of it. The new should replace the old or at least let you clean it up.
It sounds like the code you were forced into was super sloppy. Making move increment and decrement operator is an micro-optimization in the extreme. You can probably safely remove that non-sense and not see any difference if your class implements something like sane value semantics and use RAII. But of course like any language someone can make a big ball of mud when misusing the tools.
I agree there is complexity but I think most of the complexity you have needed to deal with is because of bad code. I could write you some Python or Ruby that is equally impossible to parse and deal with. Watch as I overload methods on Method class and Class class.